"Microsoft has sensationally abandoned its controversial plans to restrict the sharing of XBox One games, and has also removed daily online authentication requirements for its forthcoming console", reports The Guardian. They had no choice. Still a good move.

Opposition to steam has decreased, but it certainly still exists. "Renting" as a replacement for buying, DRM, etc.
Microsoft suck, but this is being directed at them for changing how disc-based games work, not due to who they are. With PC games, you can still buy a disc, and just not activate it on steam.
These restrictions are accepted for downloaded games, but not physical media games, which was the point.

currently steam is one option of many that you can use for your PC. There's not yet a steam console that's 100% locked into steam which possibly would require a similar policy to what xbone's was.

The whole issue with xbone was that MS wanted you to spend a ton of money to exclusively lock you into their abuses.

With steam: don't install it and your computer will still work. steam doesn't own your computer. with xbone: don't plug it in and it's a doorstop. MS owns it, not you. Well i guess things have changed.

I do find that steam is a very good way to purchase and manage older games that occasionally go on firesale.

With xbone: the damage is done. they tried to pull a fast one and got caught, then they recant. That's how criminals act, not companies wanting you as a customer.

I hate microsoft as much as the next fellow, but I'd have to agree that they did get kind of a bum rap with this.

I don't actually play videogames enough to really have either policy affect me. They were trying to make a trade off with allowing a player to play any of there games anywhere without transporting disks and allowing publishers to get a chunk of used game sales. If they had just focused on the former, I don't think they would have gotten the back lash they did.

I think the all digital sounds like a good idea, but the used game sales was messed up. It needs to be simpler, and not require the permission of the publisher. How cool would it be to swap games in xbox live with a friend for what ever price you two agreed on? Game stores could have their own master account so you could still get them from their accounts if you wanted.

It is a shit choice Thom. There was the chance the remove retail outlets out of the equation from what was (at the end of the day) software distribution.

The way I read the announcement was:
* Disc-based games will be available under the same terms as the 360
* An online store will also exist, and those games will be under fundamentally different terms to disc-based games

This means the customer gets to decide which business model to go with. The only open question is whether the online store will offer the same discounts that Steam does, essentially to compensate for having zero resale value or lending capability. If is does, the market can decide which distribution model is better. If it doesn't, then yes, we're stuck with an antiquated software distribution model.

This means the customer gets to decide which business model to go with.

Until, for whatever reason (either their own interest of power over their customers, incentive from Microsoft, whatever...), they start publishing more and more games as digital downloads only. Or, patch this DRM "feature" back in slowly, bit after bit, and hope their customers don't notice that by the time the next system has been released it has Xbox One's original "features"--which have been there, quietly put back in, all along.

With steam: don't install it and your computer will still work. steam doesn't own your computer. with xbone: don't plug it in and it's a doorstop. MS owns it, not you.

That's got to be the best, most concise and right-on-the-money description of this entire affair.

If I don't want Steam's crapware on my computer to play FTL, DDO, or countless other third party games, I don't have to install it. I can get those titles standalone from the publisher. The only thing I miss out on by passing up Steam is Valve-only titles.

With the Xbox, the only thing I'm missing out on, again, are Microsoft-only titles and the headaches of using a locked down platform.

In either case, I have choice in the matter. You try to make it sound like it's a crime to play games on anything but the Xbox, and a sin to complain about the DRM and other awful "features". The truth is, in both environments (PC gaming and console gaming) there are choices. In PC gaming there are countless choices: Steam, GoG.com, desura.com, and of course the game publishers themselves. In console gaming there are only three (arguably two) major players, but there is still choice. Why the hell do you feel that is a bad thing? You're being so damned antisocial about this, to the point of taking it as a personal affront that some person somewhere out there doesn't want an Xbox, and that borders on insanity.

So, try not to pop a vein while I go back to playing FTL that I bought from the developer's site, or maybe Minecraft that I got from Mojang, or even Torchlight that I got from GoG.com (free this week btw).

It is a shit choice Thom. There was the chance the remove retail outlets out of the equation from what was (at the end of the day) software distribution.

No the shit choice is creating a product that inspires anger in the majority of your potential customers.

They made a smart choice to remove the controversial changes. Pre-order stats and polls showing which console was highly favored were not a mystery to anyone. Digging in for a quick loss before the next gen even started would be stupid.

Yeah, and some of them sure could use it. Come to think of it, having to get out some might even teach the really antisocial ones the purpose of a shower. The use of water to clean one's body has escaped the understanding of some gamers lately.

The whole point is convenience ... if I want to buy a game I have to go to town which basically is longer than my lunch break and everything shuts after I finish work.

I pay for the convenience of not having to rush the 1 hour of my day where I can eat and chat.

Amazon.com, there's many options that can bring it to you instead of you having to go fetch it.

Also, Last of Us can be purchased digitally on PSN last I checked.

And to address the argument from earlier about prices, do you REALLY think that MS would charge less if they cut the retailers out? Please... you can get older games for much, much cheaper at retailers for the 360 that you can buying it digitally from XBLive marketplace.

This happens all the time, I can't recall that last time I saw a game available over XBLive marketplace that was cheaper than retail. They will not lower prices, they will just take a larger cut for the same price people have always been willing to spend.

Now, the used game market.. I do however despise that GameStop is making money hand over fist just scanning barcodes and marking up product 2-3x that they "bought back" from the consumer. I never buy used games, I like my money to be recorded as another sale and by dollars to contribute towards the developer and publisher. Killing the used game industry is a good thing IMO, but there are many out there that depend on it in order to afford to game. I just make the choice myself to not participate in it any longer.

Last time I turned in STACKS of games at GameStop, I got enough credit to buy 3 new games and some chump change left over. Pretty sad...

Now, the used game market.. I do however despise that GameStop is making money hand over fist just scanning barcodes and marking up product 2-3x that they "bought back" from the consumer. I never buy used games, I like my money to be recorded as another sale and by dollars to contribute towards the developer and publisher. Killing the used game industry is a good thing IMO, but there are many out there that depend on it in order to afford to game. I just make the choice myself to not participate in it any longer.

You are only equating Gamestop with second-hand games, completely disregarding all the other non-Gamestop stores and individuals who do person-to-person sales -- I simply cannot agree with you about the killing of the used-game market. If you do not like Gamestop then don't, there are plenty of alternatives.

You are only equating Gamestop with second-hand games, completely disregarding all the other non-Gamestop stores and individuals who do person-to-person sales -- I simply cannot agree with you about the killing of the used-game market. If you do not like Gamestop then don't, there are plenty of alternatives.

That's fine, I do let friends borrow discs, but very infrequently, mostly because my friends end up buying the same games I do. I'm sure selling/trading their games are good for some people but investing the time in it isn't worth my while. I'd rather do something else (like participate in dicsussions ).

In the end this is up to the publishers if you ask me. They have the power to stop it for legitimate use. Piracy will always find a way though. Steam (along with Amazon sales and places handing out keys at good deals like GreenMan Gaming) has proven that if you provide awesome service and fair deals that people will buy the product from you, enabling developers and publishers to get their share of a new customer which is just the right thing to do.

The code has been cracked for the most part, just need to find a way to scale it.

Indeed! Recently an independent used game shop opened up near me, and I was able to trade in a few shitty DS games I never play towards store credit. I got over twice what I would have from Gamestop, if they even would have bought those titles from me in the first place. I then used that credit to buy a few excellent classic GameBoy games that would have cost me three times as much on eBay or even play-asia.com.

I'm all for keeping the used game market alive, even if that means the bad stores like Gamestop still exist.

You must have no familiarity with the used goods market. It's necessary to have those kinds of markups to make a make enough money to keep the lights on. It's not a matter of getting somebody's worn out disc, marking it up dramatically and getting rich off it. You have to hope to sell this used item you just put cash into, and risk taking a bath on it. Most of them will sit on the shelf for a long time before moving.

So are you also in favour of killing the used cars market, the used clothes market, the used furniture market and the used house market? Cuz, you know, it's the same thing as used games. "

No.. it really isn't. None of those physical goods are a parallel to digital content. The phytical medium (discs) are just a vehicle for the content in this case. If we are arguing to maintain client ownership over a copy of the content that is in turn only usable by one party at a time then it's possibly the same. I believe what detractors to the philosophy of the developer being able to monetize every person that plays their game are saying is that they want to maintain ownership and dollar value of the game they purchased and be able to transfer that ownership to another individual without the original content creator involved.

I suppose I really don't mind as I choose to always make sure when I buy software that the original creator sees some of the dollars I'm spending on the content. I want them to know I cared enough to buy what they created and contribute to the entire team that was responsible from the smallest line of code, to marketing, to the legal guys who signed the licensing deal for that physics framework. That's just me though, I'm sure I'm the minority. If I was a game developer I would want it that way. Lots of them do it for the love, but they definitely don't want to just give it away. The way they see how much people value their work is how many people bought the game and played it.

I see both sides of this story, I just choose to do things the way I want to do it and I will fight to make sure what I think is right for the content creator is the agenda that is pushed. As long as the pricing for the content is fair. AAA games cost MILLIONS and YEARS to produce. The more money that flows into the content creator's hands the better off the industry is. I know people are tired of hearing about Steam, but Steam proves that those type of systems can work where fair prices are traded for awesome service.

No.. it really isn't. None of those physical goods are a parallel to digital content.

No...it really is. It's a product that you purchase. The fact that it happen to be "digital" is irrelevant.

I believe what detractors to the philosophy of the developer being able to monetize every person that plays their game are saying is that they want to maintain ownership and dollar value of the game they purchased and be able to transfer that ownership to another individual without the original content creator involved.

Yes, exactly. I bought it, I own it and what I do with it after the sale is of no concern whatsoever to the content producer and the seller. Every other product works like this and software is not special.

If I was a game developer I would want it that way.

I really don't give a shit what they want. Construction companies and workers would love it if everyone torn down houses and built new ones instead of selling the old houses but I don't see anyone arguing that we should do that.

As long as the pricing for the content is fair. AAA games cost MILLIONS and YEARS to produce.

So what? Do you think designing and manufacturing a car is cheap and done over the weekend?
Anyway, how much it costs to produce is irrelevant to my ownership of the product I have purchased.

The more money that flows into the content creator's hands the better off the industry is.

Well, you know, the more money that flows into the hands of construction workers the better off the industry is. Heck, if everyone built new houses all the time it would be a construction boom.

We can just agree to disagree. People tear houses down and build new ones all the time. I'm not about to begin equating a roof over someone's head or transportation to an optional entertainment product that is content not a required investment to live.

BTW.. I live in NYC where probalby 90% of the citizens RENT. They see NONE of their investment back, much akin to licensing somewhere to live.. right?

Dude, normally I agree with you but I gotta throw a flag, bullshit on the field. You see you are making the classic mistake of thinking "They do X because they have Y" but you are wrong and here is why: The PC HAS COMPETITION from not only literally thousands of 100% FTP games but something like a half a dozen major sites and probably 2 dozen minor ones that are ALL trying to get customers.

Now compare this to MSFT, a company that charges you for fricking multiplayer. Do you REALLY believe they would LOWER prices, really? Especially when the sacred cow that was Windows is bleeding out thanks to Ballmer pushing the abortion that is Metro AND they can't give away the Surface nor WinRT, do you REALLY think they are gonna suddenly DROP prices?

I'm sorry but you are wrong and we have proof...XBL. We haven't seen massive price drops when it comes to XBL and AFAIK there isn't ANYBODY pirating XBL, oh and for a second example the windows appstore which is on average a good 30% HIGHER than the Apple appstore, even though by the time windows gets the apps they are fricking OLD dude!

So I'm sorry but you are wrong. MSFT has NEVER been about lowering prices, I mean for God's sake Win 8 is a bigger bomb than WinME and they want $120! for the stupid thing, you think they are gonna take LESS money and pass it on to the consumer? Really? if the publishers lowered the price MSFT would just pocket the diff dude, you can bet on it.

Someone finally smelt the coffee and maybe not too late to save the fate of their console.

Nice to see the public are not as moronic as some rather greedy folk thought, seems slightly empowering in terms of consumer rights and strangely amusing.

I wasn't going to buy one regardless but always have a nano celebration when we don't have to bow to the whims of a tech firm who happen to fancy extracting a little more from a strong market of theirs... at your expense.
(MS are far from the only ones and Sony aren't my hero either)

Well I come from the angle of wanting to keep playing good games regardless of their age.

Can you imagine trying to fire up Civ2 or Super Mario Bros 3 and a message came up saying it couldn't communicate with the game server so fuck you, you can't play?

Microsoft were creating a scenario where a much loved game would be impossible to play in 10-15 years time, let alone 25 years. You will find no promises from Microsoft (prior to the recent reversal) as to how long the system would be supported.

Now I can understand why someone who works in IT would wonder why you'd want to run decades old software but while Amiga OS doesn't cut it for my regular computing needs.... Lemmings is still dam good fun.

With regards to the price of games, I have no problem picking up great games for less than £5 and we're talking huge titles like Red Dead Redemption... just a few years after you perhaps.

No it does NOT, please quit trying to spread FUD to support your position. Not only does Steam give you THIRTY DAYS in offline mode, hassle free, you know how long it takes to crack your Steam game if you want longer than 30 days? About 15 minutes, I have done it when I wasn't sure if I was gonna have a connection for longer than 30 days I just went to gamecopyworld and took less than 20 minutes. With the xbone you better be good with a soldering iron.

And unlike Xbone Steam gives you free updates (MSFT charges devs $10k to update, so your games will always be out of date), Steam gives you free MP, Steam gives you chat, Steam gives you matchmaking and ya know what? YOU HAVE CHOICE! You don't HAVE to use Steam, heck I just got the Serious Sam humble Bundle and the majority of games were DRM free! Oh and FYI if you hurry you can get Torchlight 1 for free at GOG but it ends today so you have to hurry!

But you are acting like we have Steam or nothing when IRL Steam HAS to have lower prices because WE CAN BUY ELSEWHERE while MSFT has a captive audience, not even comparable.

Steam does not own the hardware. Steam is not the only choice for PC gamers. There are countless others from Humblebundle to GoG to Gamespy. And guess what? No DRM. No internet connection required. Just purchase, download, and play.

Get off the damned Steam bullshit. PC gamers still have choices including Steam. Microsoft intends to move forward with this non-choice walled garden approach in the future.

Steam does not own the hardware. Steam is not the only choice for PC gamers. There are countless others from Humblebundle to GoG to Gamespy. And guess what? No DRM. No internet connection required. Just purchase, download, and play.

Get off the damned Steam bullshit. PC gamers still have choices including Steam. Microsoft intends to move forward with this non-choice walled garden approach in the future.

I use Steam, GoG (i've been a user of GoG since they were in beta and I own about 100 games there), Direct2Drive (bought by GameFly I think). I installed Origin to get Kingdom's of Amalur.. Also use GamersGate.. probably a few others.. OH.. BeamDog for BG:EE.. Damn I own like 4 copies of BG.. I've also bought a few Humble Bundles and usually pay over the avg. I only specifically bring up Steam all the time because it's my go-to service due to the convenience and value I get from it. I will buy anything there first before I go searching other services.

Steam is just a good example of stellar digital distribution wrapped in a fantastic service that provides good of value and often fair prices. Can you find better deals for certian titles outside of steam time-to-time. Sure.. I hope we always do, competition is a fantastic thing.

XBox Live Marketplace provides value and service, but their prices could be better. I've bought things there just for the immediacy and convenieice, but I always check Amazon first to make sure that I'm not making a wholly ridiculous move (see AC3 example I posted earlier). If the price is at least almost the same I'll pull the trigger.

It's pretty funny that every time family and friends give me gamestop gift cards for holidays or occasions, I basically use them to get Steam Cards.

Can you imagine trying to fire up Civ2 or Super Mario Bros 3 and a message came up saying it couldn't communicate with the game server so f--k you, you can't play?

Right. As I see it, there are basically two types of people:

1. Those who actually want to own their games
2. Those who want to rent their games long-term digitally from services like Steam

I got nothing against either crowd, as long as companies continue to give us an option. That way, both sides are happy. Well, at least until the online service is shut down and the second group is screwed out of their entire catalog, but hey... at least *I* don't have to worry about that

I used to work at Tesco mate (stock control) and large stores can dictate the price that they sell at which is the whole point. Tesco pretty much will kill off a lot of smaller more dedicated chains (is HMV dead yet? I haven't been back to the UK in about 2 years).

You are one of those people that believe that taking out the retailers means automatically that game publishers will sell the games for smaller prices.

I do not share your p.o.v. Their (MSs) move to digital only was not going to kill the big retailers. They already had backstage deals with MS. Why do you think they had that "special" thing where people could trade in their used games at "select" places? They would have killed smaller shops that did not have the pull to be one of those "select" places that allowed game trading to happen.

I agree that prices are some times kept artificially up because of the retailers, Blizzard is one very good example of that but I do not believe that taking them out would instantly mean lower prices for gaming. it would only mean that publishers have more power than before.

I'm also hesitant to call this a victory. Yes, for now it is. Consumers got to keep the rights that they already had. A very good thing but as we saw "terms and conditions are subject to change." No one would stop MS from doing a dick move some years down the line once people are hooked on and have invested money into the thing.

Remember how Sony decided it was not ok any more to run Linux on their PS3s? Yeah, just like that. You buy something like this if you trust the company. Both Sony and MS are on the list of evil bastards but oh look, shiny game. Me wants it! Buy, buy, buy!

I really don't see why a new method preclude the use of the old way, just ask people what they want and go ahead with it.

There are games I would like to play alone and with no need to connect to Internet and I would buy a disc or download and have it signed. On others that I would like to share and play on-line, I would use the new method. These are easy to accomplish by any new console.

MS, let people decide what and when things are better for them. Forced feeding never worked very well on long term. So much nonsense by MS lately.

It's obvious that kind of thing is what they want. The official statement revealing this backtrack even says it clearly itself:

"We believe in the benefits of a connected, digital future."

That's marketing language basically saying, "it's coming--eventually--but due to the backlash, we'll wait a bit longer." Hell, the whole damn statement reads like a depressed Microsoft Game Studios marketing official wrote it, lamenting the fact that they had to bow down to the customers' wishes. I would wait at least about three years into the Xbox One's life to slowly reclaim trust in them, but even then if it doesn't happen in some way with that system I would expect it in its successor. For me, the trust is gone--for Microsoft, "always on" DRM is the future, just as much as Windows 8 "Metro" is.

The countdown begins now... Microsoft may have removed or disabled this "functionality" (can it even be called that?) from the systems to be launched in the near future, but I expect its "features" to slowly make their way, bit by bit, in through firmware updates or possibly a system hardware redesign. They'll just try to be a bit more sneaky this time, or give publishing preference/incentives toward digital downloads over traditional physical products.

I would definitely not give Microsoft a free ride here, because it is obvious what their intent is and they *only* undid this because of all the bad press they were already receiving. I would have loved to see it being kept secret until release, and blow up in their faces with the intensity of a million red rings of death.

I paid $1000+ towards Star Citizen's kick starter. The second hand games market arguments are total bullshit. Japan still manages to function with a vibrant second hand games market. Game developers need to get back to making games and not thinking of ways to screw their customers over. Chris Roberts is focused on making a PC game that targets an untapped market segment. Maybe if other developers did the same, people would actually care about their products to stump up real money? The reality is the games market is oversaturated with crappy knock-off products. How many ww2/modern warfare clones are there now? How many crappy tower defense games? Innovate or die. It's like the stock market, you don't make real money by being where everyone is. You make money by finding where everyone will be and tapping that. Or by finding a market that is not being served. The market for locked down games isn't a market. It's a bunch of people getting screwed. The market for specific genres of games that are neglected is much larger.

Oh its not just the CoD and Tower defense ripoffs that is making it suck, you wanna know why i have been buying nearly all Indie games of late?

Because when i buy the Indie games I actually get THE GAME, not some crippled demo that will cost me over a hundred bucks just to get the full game thanks to all the fricking DLC released the first week!

If you wanna make expansion packs? I have NO problem with that, and once I have played a game completely through and I like it I find having an expansion pack available to be nice, as its a cheaper way to continue the game without a full sequel. if you wanna go the TF2 Saints Row "hey lets just cook up some goofy stuff for fun" that doesn't affect the story? Again NO problem, heck i might even buy some of it if its really funny like the Genki Mobile I bought for SR 3.

No what I am talking about is when you buy the game on release and its obvious the game has parts MISSING, this is why I waited nearly a year before i bought the original Borderlands and will probably wait until the Xmas sale to get BL II, because its OBVIOUS that the game was MADE to have these parts but they rip them out and then nickel and dime you for it. Fighting games with half the fricking rosters becoming on disc DLC, shooter having entire subplots ripped out and made into DLC, its total BS.

If I pay $60 for the game I expect to get the fricking game NOT a crippled piece of a game and THEN shell out $40 for a season pass...not happening. if i have to wait a fricking year just for you to release the entire game guess what? i'll just wait a year until I can get THE ENTIRE GAME when I can not only get the "game of the year" (translate: The actual game) but I'll get it at less than half the price to boot!

Lucas thinking the Xbone would have cheaper games if only MSFT could have draconian DRM obviously hasn't been keeping up on current events, you had the former head of EA saying games should be $80-$100 (gotta hit the quarterly earnings you know, that Jag isn't gonna pay for itself!) and more and more companies playing the DLC "season pass" BS? at least on the PC I can just walk on over to the indie devs and buy directly or through Humble Bundles and I'll wait on those that play the "season pass" card until Steam has it for under $30 just for insulting me like that.

I'd also mention EA's policy of shutting down the servers which support the missing parts of games (aka DLC) and online multiplayer as early as they possibly can; seems like 18 months is all you get now for the titles with yearly revisions.

I wonder why they might do that? Do they not feel the new version is compelling enough without forcing their customers to upgrade?

No thanks EA (or whoever else won't let me own the game I bought) I don't care how good your title is as I'll never play it to find out.

Oh you do NOT want to get me started on fricking EA! You know how many games I have found sitting in bargain bins that might as well be a useless hunk of plastic thanks to EA pulling the plugs?

There is no damned excuse when i can fire up a game of Team Fortress Classic from 1998 and be happily fragging away while a game that isn't even half that from EA you can't play shit.I got the MoH Anniversary like a year and a hald after it came out and NONE of the games, not a single one, had MP that would work! Hell a couple of the games wouldn't even run on anything newer than XP, did EA care or put out a patch to fix it? Nope.

I own almost all consoles out now (asides for the Wii U) and I think I won't buy consoles anymore. Steam is full of cheap games, is easy to use, isn't too much of a pain with DRMs, and most games needs an OK PC to run (I use an old Q9450 with 4BG DDR2 and a 6870, almost everything runs fine in 1080p on my TV).
Consoles makers dug their own grave IMO, high prices for games and not user friendly enough...

The first and most important was communication, why didn't anyone in Microsoft know what was going on, why wasn't there a unified voice. When the news broke of the XB1 and journo's starting asking questions, pretty much all Microsoft staff contradicted themselves, one said it would do xyz the other said it wouldn't. That was bad in itself, but there was also the questions which wouldn't be answered, ok, if i buy the console and i decide to do zyx with it, can i do this? <blink blink> no comment, no answer. Now if you don't provide an answer people will make up and provide one for you.

The communications / PR for Microsoft have been atrocious, however i don't think ive ever seen Microsoft get their PR right, they constantly put their foot in their mouths, they can have a great product, the greatest ever and somehow PR/marketing will screw it up big time.

The second part of the xb1 which is a little disappointing is the either all or nothing approach that Microsoft have adopted. The family sharing of games with 10 people, good idea, install and don't need the disc good idea. Surely there was a compromise. Couldn't someone have installed a game and then had the option, "if you install the game and remove the need for disk your xbox will need to go online once every24 hours, continue?" something that simple? Give the choice back to the people paying your bills and wages, i.e. the consumer.

If not that why not apply the DRM to games brought online, "here consumers buy this game online instead of on disc and we'll let you share it with 10 friends" A nice carrot to persuade the mass-market to move to digital distribution, because lets face it, apart from conviences there isn't many carrots. Games on the 360 on Live are generally twice as expensive as you can get them on disk from the shops (they are here in the UK, i.e. things like the new need for speed is £20 in the shops, £39.99 online)

I know a lot of people have joked with the xbox being the xbox180, however even though this was a turn about for Microsoft, i would have liked them to have thought seriously about it and not act like a spoiled kid and thrown it's toys out the pram, there if you whine your not having anything.

My final point, i promise, is that i am a little surprised Microsoft did this, yeah there was a lot of bad PR, but from all of the press clippings i saw, the Xbox1 before the 180 was selling out at pre-orders in all retail stores in the UK?

Granted, it's only Amazon (and no exact numbers released), but they're still the biggest online retailer out there. Both consoles seem to be neck-and-neck in pre-orders. The US is traditionally a strong market for Xbox, while Germany leans towards the Playstation name a bit more. Interestingly enough, the PS4 beats the Xbox One in the US "Most Wished For" section, though I've got no clue what that's supposed to mean.

At the end of the day, I think the majority of gamers (and parents that buy consoles for gamer kids) don't really know or care about what the blogosphere or tech press is saying.

It's great that some much-needed flexibility has been restored over disc-based games and it's a nice PR move, but I can't help but feel this is delaying the evitable. Games on disc are on borrowed time, and will likely either disappear or be heavily marginalised by the end of the next (PS4/XBox One) generation. In some ways this feels like giving in the the mob and technologically a backward step.

Microsoft certainly does itself no favors by tripping itself up in PR flaps like this.

The problem with imposing restrictions like this is that you sure as hell better be able to articulate the benefits of the restriction.

Apple did well here with their walled garden, there was a clear pain point addressed which was reliability, safety, and performance.

What did Microsoft do to sell the used game restriction or always-online feature to gamers? Cloud compute in games is a phenomenal idea for gaming. They completely failed to sell people on those changes.

Where were the games with massive scale to show off the trade off you get? If you're going to require me to go online once a day you sure as hell better show me the benefits.

The same goes for the used game situation. Sure, it may have been noble of Microsoft to try to destroy the used game market, as it really is nefarious, they again failed to articulate the benefits of such a change.

I mean, maybe some people here like getting 2 bucks for their 60 dollar game at GameStop, but that's not exactly something I'd miss.

Why weren't digital only games cheaper? Make every XB1 game 39.99, 49.99 for new releases and put up periodic deep discounts like Steam. Add bundles of classics to return value to Game studios as well.

Maybe this was in the works, who the hell knows, but the point is that at the time that they announced the changes, they had nothing to offer in exchange except vague promises.

Then of course, Microsoft being Microsoft, has to have the most inept PR department I've ever seen so of course almost everyone interviewed totally screwed up the messaging.

One is that this is not a real mea culpa. Sure, after a one-time set up of the system, I no longer need to access the internet to play my disc based games.

Except...what if the Xbox One servers are taken offline at the end of the console's life? How do I set up the system so I can play One games when the 9th generation consoles are released? I can still play the original Xbox game discs for as long as they and my console last. No middle man through the internet is ever needed.

Microsoft says you can share the discs. Except....what if the publishers decide otherwise? I may still be required to use a Steam-like model of authentication and serial verification for titles from EA, etc. In fact, publishers really really want to go to this model.

So yeah, disc based games are under the same terms as 360 ones....for now. But, they make a point of saying: "We believe in the benefits of a connected, digital future."

So the creation of the new online store will also exist, and we will certainly soon discover that those games may have different requirements and necessities.

Then there is the issue of the Kinect. To play devils-advocate to the devils-advocates, not mentioning it may be the first doorway in to the future of always online necessity. If you get a Kinect, and the Kinect requires online connectivity for almost all games, disc-based or purchased via the online store, then in essence you are still back to an always online connection being necessary for using the damned Xbox One.

Microsoft NEVER changes. This is not a marketing ploy. This is a psychological one. They are going to the boil the frogs more slowly. They turned up the heat a little too fast and saw that the little froggies tried to jump out of the pot. This way, they will climb in willingly because of some cool titles. Then a firmware update comes along in a few years. Then the publishers switch to downloadable games only. Then the Kinect requires always online connectivity.

I don't trust this mea culpa because I know Microsoft from various perspectives. I have been an adult as long as they have been a company. I know what to expect from them, and they never disappoint me in their under-handed business practices from monopoly abuse to FUD campaigns to shadow lawsuits through some smaller company to now this.

I won't be getting a One. I love my original Xbox and I enjoy the 360. It will be years until I see how this all plays out before I would even consider getting a One.